EU to ban Islamic Terrorism

[Futoque]

Reminds me of a part of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio show. There is a cloning machine that is broken. If they turn it off they will end up killing at least two clones. This would be murder. The owners of the cloning machine hire some lawyers to look into the problem. They end up re-evaluating murder, redefining it and in the end even respelling it.

[Crown]

Not to break up the 'OMG the PC stoopid!' circle jerk going on here, but could someone explain to me why this is a bad thing? Are we forgetting that the majority of the US population was led into a war by the clever following of one word with another; Saddam, 9/11, to the point where the majority of the US population believed unflinchingly that Saddam was not only involved in 9/11, but was probably responsible for it? Some of which are represented on this very board, who have since recanted?

So doesn't it stand to reason, that even the EU population - which has been demonstrably smarter than it's US cousins on the Saddam vis-a-vis 9/11 word game - would start to automatically assosciate Islam as defacto assosiated with terror, if we just constantly use the term 'Islamic terrorism'? Not to mention the backlash and the feeling of being ostracized that must be felt within the Muslim population of the EU countries, the majority of which are moderate to liberal?

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Not to break up the 'OMG the PC stoopid!' circle jerk going on here, but could someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

Because it's beaurocrats wasting everyone's time and money?

Are we forgetting that the majority of the US population was led into a war by the clever following of one word with another; Saddam, 9/11, to the point where the majority of the US population believed unflinchingly that Saddam was not only involved in 9/11, but was probably responsible for it? Some of which are represented on this very board, who have since recanted?

So doesn't it stand to reason, that even the EU population - which has been demonstrably smarter than it's US cousins on the Saddam vis-a-vis 9/11 word game - would start to automatically assosciate Islam as defacto assosiated with terror, if we just constantly use the term 'Islamic terrorism'?

If our European cousins are, indeed, that much smarter, shouldn't they be able to realize that not every Muslim is, in fact, a terrorist? When they use the term "Islamic Terrorism," they are, in fact, referring to the Muslims who are actually terrorists.

Because when a Saudi Arabian man runs at a building with a bomb strapped to himself, screaming "Allahu Ackbar!" it is indeed Islamic Terrorism.

[theski]

Not to break up the 'OMG the PC stoopid!' circle jerk going on here, but could someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

Because it's beaurocrats wasting everyone's time and money?

Are we forgetting that the majority of the US population was led into a war by the clever following of one word with another; Saddam, 9/11, to the point where the majority of the US population believed unflinchingly that Saddam was not only involved in 9/11, but was probably responsible for it? Some of which are represented on this very board, who have since recanted?

So doesn't it stand to reason, that even the EU population - which has been demonstrably smarter than it's US cousins on the Saddam vis-a-vis 9/11 word game - would start to automatically assosciate Islam as defacto assosiated with terror, if we just constantly use the term 'Islamic terrorism'?

If our European cousins are, indeed, that much smarter, shouldn't they be able to realize that not every Muslim is, in fact, a terrorist? When they use the term "Islamic Terrorism," they are, in fact, referring to the Muslims who are actually terrorists.

Because when a Saudi Arabian man runs at a building with a bomb strapped to himself, screaming "Allahu Ackbar!" it is indeed Islamic Terrorism.

You are Correct sir... nicely done

[AMX]

If our European cousins are, indeed, that much smarter, shouldn't they be able to realize that not every Muslim is, in fact, a terrorist?

False dilemma.

Just because somebody did not yet succumb to the propaganda doesn't mean he's immune to it.

[Lord Zentei]

If our European cousins are, indeed, that much smarter, shouldn't they be able to realize that not every Muslim is, in fact, a terrorist?

False dilemma.

Just because somebody did not yet succumb to the propaganda doesn't mean he's immune to it.

Which changes the fact that not every Muslim is a terrorist not one iota.

This is no false dilemma. The susceptibility of certain people to propaganda is irrelevant.

[AMX]

If our European cousins are, indeed, that much smarter, shouldn't they be able to realize that not every Muslim is, in fact, a terrorist?

False dilemma.

Just because somebody did not yet succumb to the propaganda doesn't mean he's immune to it.

Which changes the fact that not every Muslim is a terrorist not one iota.

What's that got to do with anything?
Crown says the constant use of the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" has a harmful effect, because it creates the impression that Islam = Terrorism.
JD says "Nope, Europeans haven't swallowed that yet, so they won't ever, so it's not doing any harm."
That is, obviously, nonsense.

This is no false dilemma. The susceptibility of certain people to propaganda is irrelevant.

Since the whole point of the discussion is what harmful effect the propaganda has, the susceptibility of certain people to said propaganda is very much relevant.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

What's that got to do with anything?
Crown says the constant use of the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" has a harmful effect, because it creates the impression that Islam = Terrorism.
JD says "Nope, Europeans haven't swallowed that yet, so they won't ever, so it's not doing any harm."
That is, obviously, nonsense.

Don't strawman me, fucktard. That isn't what I said and you damned well know it.

[AMX]

What's that got to do with anything?
Crown says the constant use of the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" has a harmful effect, because it creates the impression that Islam = Terrorism.
JD says "Nope, Europeans haven't swallowed that yet, so they won't ever, so it's not doing any harm."
That is, obviously, nonsense.

Don't strawman me, fucktard. That isn't what I said and you damned well know it.

Ah, yes, of course.
You put an "if" in front of it.
Big difference, that

[VT-16]

Then maybe we should ban all forms of descriptive terrorism just because it could be "potentially harmful". No more "Basque terrorists" when ETA is mentioned, just "European Citizen Group who claim their home territory as an independent state"? :P

[AMX]

Then maybe we should ban all forms of descriptive terrorism just because it could be "potentially harmful". No more "Basque terrorists" when ETA is mentioned, just "European Citizen Group who claim their home territory as an independent state"?

Looks like *somebody* missed the "non-binding" in the OP...

[The Guid]

So let me get this straight... people are objecting to this because it wastes people's time and money? They are not objecting to it because there are at least grounds for saying it is at least a little dishonest. I don't have to subvert islam too much, nor would I have to subvert Christianity that much to want to blow the shit out of myself and take someone else with me. I am suprised that nobody at SD.net has made that statement yet.

On the other hand however we are trying to deal with a problem - the problem is extremists dragging people to their cause whilst we, the West, try and keep the moderates on side. If this helps that cause, then why the fuck is it a waste of people's money and time?

[Crown]

Not to break up the 'OMG the PC stoopid!' circle jerk going on here, but could someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

Because it's beaurocrats wasting everyone's time and money?

You have yet to show that this is a waste of everyone's time and money.

Are we forgetting that the majority of the US population was led into a war by the clever following of one word with another; Saddam, 9/11, to the point where the majority of the US population believed unflinchingly that Saddam was not only involved in 9/11, but was probably responsible for it? Some of which are represented on this very board, who have since recanted?

So doesn't it stand to reason, that even the EU population - which has been demonstrably smarter than it's US cousins on the Saddam vis-a-vis 9/11 word game - would start to automatically assosciate Islam as defacto assosiated with terror, if we just constantly use the term 'Islamic terrorism'?

If our European cousins are, indeed, that much smarter, shouldn't they be able to realize that not every Muslim is, in fact, a terrorist? When they use the term "Islamic Terrorism," they are, in fact, referring to the Muslims who are actually terrorists.

Firstly; not 'if', but 'are'. Secondly one would indeed hope that this situation is so, but your response doesn't actually address anything, other than to say; 'hey, if it hasn't worked yet, then in wont work later', which is a really funny thing to say that the power of association of phrases increases with repeated exposure to it.

Because when a Saudi Arabian man runs at a building with a bomb strapped to himself, screaming "Allahu Ackbar!" it is indeed Islamic Terrorism.

No. It isn't. It is terrorism, plain and simple. The 'Islamic' part is used as an identifier as to what political and social motives were behind the hypothetical man's attack. An intelligent individual would see that as being true, perhaps you have demonstrated my above point - inadvertantly I'm sure - far clearly than I ever could have.

Then maybe we should ban all forms of descriptive terrorism just because it could be "potentially harmful". No more "Basque terrorists" when ETA is mentioned, just "European Citizen Group who claim their home territory as an independent state"?

Touché

[Crown]

Before other's reply, I will like to point out that I will be absent for a while so it might be a time before I get back to this, also the reason I said touché to VT-16 is quite simple; he recognised that the term 'Islamic Terrorism' is a 'forms of descriptive [lable]' and not the motivation behind the act.

This is an important distinction, and it is this very distinction that the EU officials feel is being lost upon or could be lost upon the general public. They also mention that this distinction will lead to greater tension between Muslims in the EU and European citizens increasing ostracization and radicalism.

I feel that Fleet Admiral JD proved this point perfectly with the following;

Because when a Saudi Arabian man runs at a building with a bomb strapped to himself, screaming "Allahu Ackbar!" it is indeed Islamic Terrorism.

Here he drew the analogy (perhaps haphazardly, but certainly false) that just because a hypothetical man yells 'Allahu Ackbar!' and blows himself up (presumeably) that this must be an example of Islamic Terrorism. But that is just patently nothing more than a form of a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

The man's religion didn't incite him to perform terrorism, and he wasn't performing it for his religion, he was performing it for clear and calculated reasons, wishing to affect some kind of social and political change. When we refer to it as 'Islamic' terrorism, we are not refering to religion, but the general goals the terrorists of Bin Laden and his ilk wish affect.

Put it another way; a Buddhist monk set himself on fire to protest draconian rule in Vietnam. Do we there for say that everytime someone sets themselves on fire they are 'Buddhist' protestors? Of course not.

[theski]

Crown wrote:

The man's religion didn't incite him to perform terrorism, and he wasn't performing it for his religion

and you know this how??

[The Guid]

Crown wrote:

The man's religion didn't incite him to perform terrorism, and he wasn't performing it for his religion

and you know this how??

You make the opposite assumption. Why is yours any more valid?

[theski]

Crown wrote:

The man's religion didn't incite him to perform terrorism, and he wasn't performing it for his religion

and you know this how??

You make the opposite assumption. Why is yours any more valid?

Is not him ,invoking Gods name while comiting a action, a more assumable position??

[The Guid]

You're suggesting we take the word of a man about to blow the shit out of himself and others? You think he knows anything about his motivations?

[theski]

You're suggesting we take the word of a man about to blow the shit out of himself and others? You think he knows anything about his motivations?

Just to be clear.. Do you think he is using his religion as a motovator in this action?

[Crown]

Is not him, invoking Gods name while comiting a action, a more assumable position??

NO!

For God's sake don't you understand what the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy is?

By invoking God's name we can say that he was religious (although even that is an asumption, as I just invoked the name of God and am an athiest), but not that his religion insighted him to blow himself up. Any more than we can say the Buddhist monk's religion is what led to him to protest by setting himself on fire.

[Lord Zentei]

What's that got to do with anything?
Crown says the constant use of the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" has a harmful effect, because it creates the impression that Islam = Terrorism.
JD says "Nope, Europeans haven't swallowed that yet, so they won't ever, so it's not doing any harm."
That is, obviously, nonsense.

If Crown claims that use of the term "Islamic Terrorism" is harmful, it is his business to prove such a thing. The burden is not on JD to show that it is not harmful.

Since the whole point of the discussion is what harmful effect the propaganda has, the susceptibility of certain people to said propaganda is very much relevant.

Not to the extent that your accusation of a false dilemma fallacy is accurate.

[Crown]

If Crown claims that use of the term "Islamic Terrorism" is harmful, it is his business to prove such a thing. The burden is not on JD to show that it is not harmful.

I believe that my point has been proven in this very thread for me, by those who don't understand what we mean when we use the term of Islamic Terrorism, by people who funnily - or alarmingly - enough were arguing in the negative.

Irony. Wonderful.

[CarsonPalmer]

Does saying "tall construction worker" involve the assumption that all construction workers are tall, or all tall people construction workers? If not, why does "Islamic terrorist" involve the assumption that all terrorists are Islamic, or all Islamic people terrorists? Also, since when is the US a police state?

[Crown]

Does saying "tall construction worker" involve the assumption that all construction workers are tall, or all tall people construction workers? If not, why does "Islamic terrorist" involve the assumption that all terrorists are Islamic, or all Islamic people terrorists?

And does repeating; Saddam Huessian and 9/11 over and over and over again mean that SH had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, and yet, this was all that was necessary to convince something like 80% of the US population (if memory serves) that he did.

Also in this very thread, we've had two people try and defend that saying Islamic Terrorist doesn't mean that all muslim's are terrorists (they are correct), but both failed to even understand what the term Islamic Terrorist actually means, which ended up providing hard evidence for the point I and namely the EU analysts are arguing, all the while taking the negative position.

Sometimes comedy just writes its self.

Also, since when is the US a police state?

That can't possibly be directed at me.

[Lord Zentei]

If Crown claims that use of the term "Islamic Terrorism" is harmful, it is his business to prove such a thing. The burden is not on JD to show that it is not harmful.

I believe that my point has been proven in this very thread for me, by those who don't understand what we mean when we use the term of Islamic Terrorism, by people who funnily - or alarmingly - enough were arguing in the negative.

Irony. Wonderful.

The association between certain instances of terrorism and its alleged motivation is not going to disappear simply by banning the phrase. After all, many of these terrorists are the very ones who advertise their activities as "Islamic", and claim that they are the ones truly representing their religion as opposed to their liberal co-religionists.